ILNews

Opinions May 24, 2011

May 24, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted on opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
S.W. by P.W. v. B.K.
71A03-1012-PO-655
Protective order. Reverses trial court’s denial of S.W.’s motion to correct error, remands for a hearing on civil contempt petition, and orders S.W. to be reimbursed $250 appellate filing fee. Held that Indiana code states filing fees will not be assessed for a proceeding seeking relief from or enforcement of a civil protective order.

Paternity of A.S.; B.S. v. E.M.
82A01-1006-JP-291
Juvenile paternity. Affirms trial court’s award of primary custody to mother and remands to trial court for determination of how and when the father may make-up lost parenting time.

Wastewater One, et al. v. Floyd County Board of Zoning Appeals, et al.

22A04-1007-PL-418
Civil plenary. Affirms the trial court’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment affirming the Board of Zoning Appeals’ denial of the applicant’s conditional use of application for expansion of a sewage treatment plant.

Harold E. York v. State of Indiana
27A02-1008-CR-956
Criminal. Dismisses Harold York’s interlocutory appeal previously granted by the Court of Appeals, in anticipation of the defendant claiming the trial court should have granted his motion to dismiss the charge of Failure to Register as a Sex Offender, a Class D felony. In its decision to dismiss, the appeals court held that the state did not allege York had failed to register under the lifetime requirement, but that he violated the Registration Act by failing to include his fiancee’s house as his residence.  

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.K.; C.W. v. IDCS (NFP)
42A04-1010-JT-699
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Christian D. Howard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1010-CR-656
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s revocation of probation and decision to allow hearsay testimony.
 
Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions by IL deadline.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT